Spellcasting accuracy.

[Tobold Hornblower]

When a spellcaster uses a spell with a radius area of effect, like fireball, and wants it to go off on the other side of an enemy who's in melee with an ally, can she automatically target it so that the enemy is hit but the ally isn't? Or is there some mechanic for determining the accuracy of the center of the spell, so that it might be slightly off, and the ally also be hit?

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Yes. There was a recent discussion about this very topic a few days ago. The most frequent argument was that the wizard has studied all his life exactly to do this (ie place his spells at the correct grid intersections).

AR

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Purely as a practical matter let them do it. It will make your job as a DM easier.

Whatever limitations you impose will be gamed by the players to minimize the downsides. They have more time to plan and consider tactical options at the table than you do.

Better to let them have their way and make it easier on the DM to play his spellcasters competently. Everyone will have more fun.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As a house rule you could have casters roll to hit the square with a ranged touch attack (AC 10), and use the grenade-like weapons table if they miss. Gives wizards a reason to have a BAB...

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Purely as a practical matter let them do it. It will make your job as a DM easier.

If, on the other hand, you want some variability, but you want to keep it extremely simple, try this:

While casting the spell, the caster indicates his target intersection. He rolls 1d20. On anything but a 1-8, the spell goes where desired; on a 1-8, it's off by one sqaure, direction indicated by the die result.

It's only one extra d20 roll, and it prevents the ultra-precise targeting so many folks find unreasonable, but it's not so draconian that reasonable players will balk.

 

[Tobold Hornblower]

Thanks, that makes it nice and simple.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

If, on the other hand, you want some variability, but you want to keep it extremely simple, try this:

While casting the spell, the caster indicates his target intersection. He rolls 1d20. On anything but a 1-8, the spell goes where desired; on a 1-8, it's off by one sqaure, direction indicated by the die result.

It's only one extra d20 roll, and it prevents the ultra-precise targeting so many folks find unreasonable, but it's not so draconian that reasonable players will balk.

A question for you Jeff. Do you use that method? And, if yes, does it matter if the wizard is aiming the fireball 30' or 300' away?

Thanks.

AR

 

[Vrecknidj]

If placing spells accurately is part of the craft of spellcasting, then you could always have them make a Spellcraft check to do this.

The DC would probably be something like 10 + spell level. I wouldn't modify things much for range, because ranges are built into the spell.

That said, there are still line of sight considerations and whatnot. Just because a particular wizard's range on a particular fireball is 1200', doesn't mean that the wizard is in an environment where he can see 1200'.

And, if the range of a spell is within an area of concealment (fog, thick jungle, etc.) then it seems reasonable to require some kind of roll to determine where the spell actually goes off (and who within the region then gets a bonus to the save, etc.).

Dave

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A question for you Jeff. Do you use that method? And, if yes, does it matter if the wizard is aiming the fireball 30' or 300' away?

Yes, we use it. It's worked very well, creating some fun situations, both in favor of and against the PCs.

No, range doesn't matter, the way we use it. In my game I'm more interested in simplicity than I am in perfect verisimilitude. The basic "1-8 Rule" has worked for us as a nice balance. For the most part, it doesn't matter ... I can count on one hand the number of times someone has launched a fireball at any kind of extreme range.

 

[sdt]

An easy solution that my group sometimes uses is to give the characters a Reflex save as if they had Improved Evasion, however, I prefer a Spellcraft check; it's funny when the caster misses it.